Jump to content

Trial By Geocaching Jury


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Just remember. People go read your past posts and the evidence convicts you. I don't even know and have never talked to you in anyway but after reading a bunch of your threads I think you got what you deserved.

 

Jeremy told me a while ago, because of my name I have my work cut out for me.

Does the 1000 different logs from all my hidden caches account for anything. It's kinda like, I can build 100 houses that are perfect. But If I mess one up, people will always remember that one.

 

:lol:

See, if you keep all your posts mellow like this one then, overtime, things would settle down.

 

Also, even if you were wronged, it might be worth dropping it and trying to start over. I know that it isn't easy to do but sometimes it is the better choice to just swallow your pride and move on although you seem to have a temper and you let it get to you quite often.

 

Personally, I think your name is tasteless and only serves to help people pre-judge you (not is a good way, either). It is not my call to judge people's usernames and I try to keep an open mind but I personally think that one is just uncalled for and I am amazed that they approved it to begin with. JUST MY OPINION!

 

I hope that you are able to resolve your issues and find the joy in caching again. Being new I am still amazed at how fun it is and it is too bad that you seem to have lost that.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment

Once again, I ask for information about the alleged unapproved cache that was allegedly denied because of another cache being planned in the area. I cannot seem to find it any place in Colorado over the past year. I did check each page.

 

I did find the cache that was denied because it was 375 feet from an existing cache. You received the same archive note that many, many other geocachers receive when the proximity guideline is discussed.

 

And I found two caches of yours in Colorado that were approved.

 

What am I missing? Where are these other caches? Do you have another account name?

 

Awaiting specific facts so that the forum community may be fully informed.

Link to comment
Once again, I ask for information about the alleged unapproved cache that was allegedly denied because of another cache being planned in the area. I cannot seem to find it any place in Colorado over the past year. I did check each page.

 

I did find the cache that was denied because it was 375 feet from an existing cache. You received the same archive note that many, many other geocachers receive when the proximity guideline is discussed.

 

And I found two caches of yours in Colorado that were approved.

 

What am I missing? Where are these other caches? Do you have another account name?

 

Awaiting specific facts so that the forum community may be fully informed.

Oh....seems some folks forget that all the approvers can check this sort of thing, no matter what area they approve in! Thanks for shedding more light on the issue, KA. It's always good to know the full story! :lol:

Link to comment
Now they won't let an adoption take place with four caches in New York.

 

Need more specific evidence.

 

They also won't list one of my caches because they say a cacher is working on a puzzle cache less then 528 feet from my cache. The puzzle cache isn't even listed and my cache just sits.

 

Guilty. The way I understand it is if one cache is placed within .10 of another cache, it will not be approved. I could be wrong on this though.

 

In New York they approved a cache called We $hit You not. Two years later in Co, they won't approve the same cache out here because of the name.

 

Guilty. I don't think the first cache should have been approved because of the name and I don't think the second should be either. We have kids that read this site, ya know?

 

I archived Upinyachit's vacation cache and placed a different one in the same spot. They didn't approve it because it was to close to a virtual cache.

 

Guilty. You snooze, you lose. See sentencing #2 above.

:lol:

 

Now that I have had my popcorn, and if the above facts are the case you would get a guilty vote from me too. :lol:

 

Your name has nothing to do with anything. Your attitude does. :lol:

Link to comment
Once again, I ask for information about the alleged unapproved cache that was allegedly denied because of another cache being planned in the area. I cannot seem to find it any place in Colorado over the past year. I did check each page.

 

The Runyon Cache (GCHA71) is the one in question about the puzzle thing.

 

(GC7FAD) Upinyachits Vacation Cache this cache was replaced with what's the point. But what's the point got shot down because of the virtual cache close by. But my original cache Upyachit's vacation cache was placed first.

 

What ever........... I am tired now :lol: and am sick of trying to get my caches listed. Could it be that GC could be scared I might put a cache note inside and tell members about Navicache? Just my own hypothesis :lol:

Edited by upinyachit
Link to comment

"and am sick of trying to get my caches listed. Could it be that GC could be scared I might put a cache note inside and tell members about Navicache? Just my own hypothesis"

 

Then you go off and say something stupid. I quit and I am going to bed.

 

EDIT to shorten quote

Edited by Quadcache
Link to comment
What ever........... I am tired now :lol:  and am sick of trying to get my caches listed.  Could it be that GC could be scared I might put a cache note inside and tell members about Navicache?  Just my own hypothesis :lol:

I knew about Navicache the day I found this site. To most members here, it isn't anything new.

 

Editted to say: I've seen Navicache. I don't like it.

Edited by PandyBat
Link to comment

Here are the notes left on the cache pages for Upinyachit's two archived caches.

 

The first cache, What's the Point, was archived on April 13th with the following Note from CO Admin:

HI,

I was checking your cache for approval when I found that this cache: [Name of cache omitted to protect other cache owner] Virtual Cache by [Name of other cache owner omitted] is 375 feet from your cache.

 

Unfortunately Geocaching.com guidelines state that the minimum separation for caches is .1 miles (528 feet).

 

If you can move the cache farther away I would be happy to revisit this and see about approving it.

 

From the Geocaching.com guidelines:

 

Cache Saturation

The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area.

 

Thank you

CO Admin.

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at [e-mail address omitted], referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers. Also, do not remove any admin notes as they aid other Geocaching.com admins if they need to work with you on your cache.

 

And here is the archive note dated February 28th from CO Admin for "We chit you not, Pueblo", submitted on February 27th:

 

Duane,

I have reviewed your cache submission. I also had it reviewed by a few other reviewer.

 

At this time your cache can not be approved.

 

The cache title and language in the description is offensive and contrary to the family friendly values of Geocaching.com

 

Should you wish to change the title and edit the cache description I would be happy to again consider this cache for approval, as it appears to meet all of our other listing requirements.

 

Thank you

CO Admin

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. In addition, do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at [e-mail address omitted] referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers.

 

By way of further response, I do not understand the connection between "What's the Point?" and "Upinyachit's Vacation Cache." If you archived "Upinyachit's Vacation Cache" then that area becomes open for the placement of another cache. Apparently someone placed a virtual cache near where you wanted to hide "What's the Point?" Many other cache hiders share your frustration. That is one of the reasons why virtual caches are subject to strict listing standards, because they do block the placement of a traditional cache within a 528 foot radius unless an exception to the guidelines is granted for good cause.

 

As for your cache that may have been close by to a nearby puzzle cache, after discussing this with some of the other reviewers, I believe that the geocache in question is The Runyon Cache. Whatever issues you might have worked out prior to placement, the fact remains is that your geocache *did* get listed on this website, by CO Admin. Later, you chose voluntarily to archive the cache.

 

Thank you, everyone, for taking the above facts into consideration.

 

EDIT: To correct a typo and to add the name of one of the caches being discussed.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment
Guilty. I don't think the first cache should have been approved because of the name and I don't think the second should be either. We have kids that read this site, ya know?

 

:D:lol::lol: huh? LOL Think about that for a minute..... :(

 

D

:lol::lol:;) huh? LOL I still don't get your point on that post, either..... :D

Link to comment

Keystone approver,

 

Can you take it easy? I understand your dedication to wards GC and all, but the facts I am being treated unfair. I archived my caches in a disgruntled moment, and now there is a million reasons why they won't realist them.

 

Bottom Conclusion....... Didn't you read Hydee's post?

Link to comment

so as a newbie I guess after reading all the posts, before and in this thread, I am wondering why you are so set on reactivating the New York caches when you reside over 2000 miles away. Wouldn't it be better form to just make some nice ones near you and do them without arguing and "have fun" instead of stressing about the ones so far away and already black marked?

Link to comment
Here are the notes left on the cache pages for Upinyachit's two archived caches.

 

The first cache, What's the Point, was archived on April 13th with the following Note from CO Admin:

HI,

I was checking your cache for approval when I found that this cache: [Name of cache omitted to protect other cache owner] Virtual Cache by [Name of other cache owner omitted] is 375 feet from your cache.

 

Unfortunately Geocaching.com guidelines state that the minimum separation for caches is .1 miles (528 feet).

 

If you can move the cache farther away I would be happy to revisit this and see about approving it.

 

From the Geocaching.com guidelines:

 

Cache Saturation

The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area.

 

Thank you

CO Admin.

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at [e-mail address omitted], referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers. Also, do not remove any admin notes as they aid other Geocaching.com admins if they need to work with you on your cache.

 

And here is the archive note dated February 28th from CO Admin for "We chit you not, Pueblo", submitted on February 27th:

 

Duane,

I have reviewed your cache submission. I also had it reviewed by a few other reviewer.

 

At this time your cache can not be approved.

 

The cache title and language in the description is offensive and contrary to the family friendly values of Geocaching.com

 

Should you wish to change the title and edit the cache description I would be happy to again consider this cache for approval, as it appears to meet all of our other listing requirements.

 

Thank you

CO Admin

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. In addition, do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at [e-mail address omitted] referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers.

 

By way of further response, I do not understand the connection between "What's the Point?" and "Upinyachit's Vacation Cache." If you archived "Upinyachit's Vacation Cache" then that area becomes open for the placement of another cache. Apparently someone placed a virtual cache near where you wanted to hide "What's the Point?" Many other cache hiders share your frustration. That is one of the reasons why virtual caches are subject to strict listing standards, because they do block the placement of a traditional cache within a 528 foot radius unless an exception to the guidelines is granted for good cause.

 

As for your cache that may have been close by to a nearby puzzle cache, after discussing this with some of the other reviewers, I believe that the geocache in question is The Runyon Cache. Whatever issues you might have worked out prior to placement, the fact remains is that your geocache *did* get listed on this website, by CO Admin. Later, you chose voluntarily to archive the cache.

 

Thank you, everyone, for taking the above facts into consideration.

 

EDIT: To correct a typo and to add the name of one of the caches being discussed.

Well, Duane? Any more? Seems like this case has taken a turn for the worse for your side. So far, all of your points have been torn apart and flushed by calm, rational evidence. Doesn't look like you have a leg to stand on. What's next?

Link to comment
Keystone approver,

 

Can you take it easy?  I understand your dedication to wards GC and all, but the facts  I am being treated unfair.  I archived my caches in a disgruntled moment, and now there is a million reasons why they won't  realist them. 

 

Bottom Conclusion.......  Didn't you read Hydee's post?

Actually, from what I've seen, you are being treated just like the rest of us, despite the grief you put the admins thru. Your real complaint is that you aren't getting treated special. You hide a cache called "what's the point?" (sounds like you knew it wouldn't get approved) that is too close to another cache. The reviewer asks you to move it further away, just like they would any one of us. But no, your special, that rule doesn't apply because you used to have a cache nearby. BAH.

 

You complain they won't approve a cache of yours because it;s too close to a puzzle cache. Well, since you gave the GC number, and I can see it, it obviously WAS approved. Looks like you got pissed and archived it, thinking you could reverse that a month later. Well, once you archive a cache, that spot is fair game. If it was any one of us, we couldn't get a cache unarchived if someone else hid one nearby while ours was archived. But you're special.

You get pissed and archive your NY caches, and then get mad when they aren't relisted. Well, you live 2000 miles away, they shouldn't be unarchived, especially if you were told if you archived them, they would not be revived. But you're special. The rules don't apply to you.

You HAVE been treated VERY fairly. Problem is, that's not really what you want.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

No, sir, I don't feel special at all. I am a volunteer who enjoys the free services that I contribute to our community, so in that sense I do feel special. But *not* about being called out for an impromptu trial by jury on April 15th, tax day, and two days before a CITO Event I'm helping out with, and with caches waiting to be reviewed and land manager issues to be addressed.

 

But I gladly dropped all of that to answer your request for a trial by jury. Duane, I'm a lawyer by trade. I know a bit about how jury trials work. The lawyers present the facts and the jury decides. If there are lots of facts to present, the other lawyer cannot object and say "lay off". If the bank robber held up six banks, the defense attorney cannot say "Quit it!" after the prosecutor presents the evidence about the second crime.

 

I am merely presenting the facts. I have, in fact, barely scratched the surface. Do you even *know* the work I tried to do on your behalf in December, concerning the adoptions of your New York caches? Those facts might come out. I would also think that some of the harrassing and abusive and profane e-mails that you have sent to various Groundspeak employees and volunteers might be relevant evidence in your trial.

 

Do you wish for the trial to continue, or do you wish to drop the charges? We lawyers call that a "non pros."

Link to comment
You HAVE been treated VERY fairly. Problem is, that's not really what you want.

 

Do you feel better now....... :lol:

 

I don't even know what I want........ But you know what I want? Please tell me

 

:lol:

It appears what you want is to be treated differently then every other geocacher on this website. All the complaints you make, not even just in this topic, all are about you being persecuted. Yet, when all the incidents are finally explained, they all have boiled down to you were not following the rules that every other cacher has to follow. So, the only logical thing to think is, you feel the rules don't apply to you. Why is that? Where you a spoiled only-child? The kind that gets whatever he wants from mommy and daddy by holding your breath or screaming?

Link to comment
I would also think that some of the harassing and abusive and profane e-mails that you have sent to various Groundspeak employees and volunteers might be relevant evidence in your trial.

 

 

It was one admin. that we are talking about and I have the email they sent me too. It goes both ways dude. If you are a lawyer then you would realize I have a lot of evidence that hasn't been brought up. I just can't type that fast.

 

Facts........Can you tell me why JEREMY, HYDEE, and CO admin, will not answer my pm's or emails? But I can post in the forums.........

Link to comment
My eyes hurt and look like tomatoes. LOL goodnight

You asked for a jury, you got one. This all started out nice and then you blew it when you started taking stabs at people if they didn't give you the answer you wanted.

 

Maybe you should go catch some zzzzz's and come back later when you are sober.

Link to comment
My eyes hurt and look like tomatoes. LOL goodnight

You asked for a jury, you got one. This all started out nice and then you blew it when you started taking stabs at people if they didn't give you the answer you wanted.

 

Maybe you should go catch some zzzzz's and come back later when you are sober.

will you marry me?

Link to comment
My eyes hurt and look like tomatoes. LOL goodnight

You asked for a jury, you got one. This all started out nice and then you blew it when you started taking stabs at people if they didn't give you the answer you wanted.

 

Maybe you should go catch some zzzzz's and come back later when you are sober.

will you marry me?

LOL....sorry, already taken.

Link to comment
The kind that gets whatever he wants from mommy and daddy by holding your breath or screaming?

 

I open the topic up again for you guys to slam me down.

 

It's kinds like a battered women. Her old men beets her up, but she keeps going back for more. :lol:

That seems to be the only reason you opened it back up...you even asked Mopar to slap you around, both here and in another thread, so what's your beef? You pegged it there, it appears you like the negative attention. I'd say ban you so you won't get any attention, but you'd just keep coming back with more and more "alternate" accounts like you have in the past. I don't know what the answer is you're looking for. Every time KA or anyone else shoots you down with good, hard evidence, you come back and say you've got more evidence, which is just as quickly shot down....you have absolutely no credibility anymore. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?

Link to comment

This topic should remain free of personal attacks in any direction. That applies not only to upinyachit's jabs at me, but also to comments made by others. Please confine your remarks to commenting on the facts in evidence, not insulting the person who is stating those facts. Just because one person starts throwing punches does not mean that others have a free shot in return. Thank you.

Link to comment
Are you guys done? Have you had your fun? Can I close the topic now?

 

Are you sure there is no more rude remarks you want to sneak in to (fit in)

You asked for a trial of your peers, and you are getting it. Just because it's not going the way you want doesn't mean you can change your mind about it now.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...